asked the Taoiseach whether and on what occasions he has made official representations to Radio Telefís Éireann regarding programmes or proposed programmes of the Authority.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - RTE Vietnam Feature.
1.
asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the widespread public dismay at Government intervention in a purely internal matter concerning Radio Telefís Éireann and the fact that professional journalists and others concerned in a communications medium are the best judges of an item's news value, he will reconsider his recommendations to Radio Telefís Éireann that a television news crew should not be sent to report on events in Vietnam.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The only occasion on which I made representations of the kind mentioned was when I recently informed the Chairman of Radio Telefís Éireann that, in the opinion of the Government, the best interests of the nation would not be served by sending a news team to Vietnam, as proposed by the Authority and that such a visit would be an embarrassment to the Government in relation to its foreign policy.
I am not aware there is any widespread public dismay at the decision of the Authority to drop this project following its consideration of my representations. I cannot agree that the matter was a purely internal one concerning RTE or that it was merely a question of professionally assessing the news value of the proposed assignment. I see no reason to alter my original view.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that there is continual Government interference with Telefís Éireann by verbal directions being given instead of, as stipulated under the Act, a written direction being given by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs?
I deny that emphatically. There was one occasion which was highlighted here and on which the Minister made certain representations in relation to the presentation of a news item. That is the only occasion of which I am aware.
I gather from the Taoiseach that on this occasion the direction was not in writing?
No; it was not a direction. It was a conveyance of my views, on behalf of the Government, direct to the Chairman.
The Taoiseach is aware that under section 31 of the Act the direction is understood to be, and is so stated to be, in writing.
I understand that fully. If after my views were conveyed to the Chairman, he conveyed views other than those back to me, then it would have been a matter for consideration whether the terms of section 31 should be invoked.
Is the Taoiseach satisfied on this particular matter, which can only be regarded as an interference with the objective reporting by RTE of a news item as distinct from other material? In the Act it is laid down that where news is reported, Radio Telefís Éireann will report it in an objective way. Further, is the Taoiseach aware that as a result of this interference, a film programme was since broadcast by Radio Telefís Éireann from some other source——
Poland.
——which certainly had a completely different slant on events in Vietnam, possibly a different slant from what people would expect here?
I do not think it is a question of objective reporting. There have been very few incidents or occasions in the world that have been more fully reported than has the Vietnam war. As stated by the Sunday Independent correspondent, it has received massive coverage by the wellknown news agencies, and all these are highly regarded as being objective news media. Therefore, I do not think there is any question whatever of the Irish people not being fully informed about what is happening in Vietnam,
When the Taoiseach refers to this being or not being in the best interests of the country, does he mean the visit of the RTE team to Vietnam or the showing of the film in this country?
The Radio Telefís Éireann Authority is, as we describe it here, a semi-State body. If a team representing Radio Telefís Éireann went to Vietnam, the peculiar character of a semi-State body, as we know it, could well be misinterpreted all over the world. I understand that it was the intention of RTE to sell whatever film or coverage this team might have had on Vietnam, presumably to any customer who would come along and offer to buy it. These customers might well be people who had a particular interest, opposed, perhaps, to one side or the other, and there was a great danger that the people in those countries who might buy that film would present the news or whatever items RTE would have given them in a slanted way. As I said, there is a danger of the misinterpretation of the functions of a semi-State body vis-à-vis the governments in other countries in such circumstances.
Does it necessarily mean that this country is pro-North Vietnam because RTE bought and presented the other night a Polish film on North Vietnam and the war?
We did not produce that film. It was relayed to our screens. Surely there has been a plethora of films on RTE for the past two or three years? Every evening we look at RTE we see coverage of the Vietnam war. Every day we take up the newspapers we see full and objective coverage of what is happening there. Surely the people of Ireland are fully informed on that subject?
Would the Taoiseach not agree that, due to the interference with RTE news reports, it is not a semi-State body any more, that it is a State body controlled by the Taoiseach and the Front Bench? I believe the Government are walking right through the Broadcasting Authority Act.
We did not tell them to show that film.
Further arising out of the Taoiseach's emphatic denial of interference by the Government with the Authority, is the Taoiseach aware that when a major housing scandal, which has taken place in his own constituency in Cork, was to be exposed on a television programme known as "Home Truths", this item was deleted from the programme after a telephone call was made by the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Brennan, on either 12th or 13th December?
That is a completely different matter but——
It is a factual statement.
——I should like to answer it fully and explicitly. There are proceedings pending in relation to the building of houses in Cork. RTE had the intention of covering that question in the programme "Home Truths". It was conveyed to the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that some of the people who were being interviewed in that programme and whose views would have been presented were people who had already submitted statements to the Garda authorities in connection with a pending prosecution. The Attorney General informed the Minister that, in his view, the presentation of statements by these people on Telefís Éireann would prejudice the prosecution. That information was conveyed to RTE and, I think, quite rightly in the circumstances, they decided not to proceed with that part of the programme.
Surely the serious aspect of this matter is the reflection on the bona fides of the RTE cameramen and news reporters? Assuming that the photographs taken or the news coverage provided could be regarded subsequently as being not in the best interests of this country, it would then be open to the Taoseach and RTE to prevent the dissemination of such a film. What has happened now is that we have had shown by RTE a film from an outside source completely, and we have prevented our own cameramen, whose bona fides, accuracy and objective photography are regarded highly by everybody, from reporting on this matter, leaving aside entirely, which might be a legitimate view, the cost of sending a team to Vietnam.
It is difficult to deal with this question——
I shall have to close this discussion.
I should like to answer the first part of Deputy Cosgrave's question. There was no intention whatsoever of casting any reflection on the ability or the objectivity of the team that would have been sent to Vietnam; on the contrary, I have every confidence that they would have reported back as objectively and as fairly as they possibly could in the circumstances. There was a difficulty involved that in visiting one side or the other of the area of conflict, as the Minister for External Affairs has said, they could easily have been brought on a conducted tour. Even allowing for all that, if this news were sold to other countries, we would have no control over the manner of its presentation, and, as the Deputy knows well, these things can be cut and edited to suit a particular public, once the intention was to sell it, and that was put forward as a means of offsetting the very high cost involved in the mission.
I see no objection to preventing the sale——
All this is repetition. I must allow Deputy Cluskey a closing question.
In view of the fact that the matter of the Cork housing was not sub judice then and is not subjudice now, would the Taoiseach tell us, if this matter is being investigated by the Garda, what action has been taken against the people concerned in Cork? Have any proceedings been taken against them by the Attorney General?
Again, that is not relevant, but the fact is the Garda authorities in Cork have been making inquiries of the people directly involved in this matter. They have taken statements from them with a view to having them put in evidence when a prosecution takes place. The Attorney General is processing the necessary formalities with a view to a prosecution and no matter what the Deputy thinks these people whom it is intended to prosecute are entitled to the fullest defence the law can give them at this stage; they are entitled not to have their case prejudiced in any way by a presentation of any side of the case before the case, on Telefís Éireann.
Is it not true that the Minister interfered because a Fianna Fáil supporter in his constituency was involved in this housing scandal in Cork and that because of that fact, no action has been taken by the Attorney General?
May I say, in reply to that filthy allegation, that it was through me as a Deputy for Cork, that the matter was first brought to the attention of the Attorney General.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
I do not accept that. I will forward a file to the Attorney General with regard to the case and we will see what action is taken then.
I will produce the documents next week.
I will lay my file before the House, if the Taoiseach wishes, or I will inform the Attorney General and the Taoiseach in order to substantiate what I have said.
(Interruptions.)